ASTRO šŸ”«šŸ¦¶

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

TheWallnerus

e^(iĻ€) + 1 = 0
Lifetime Donor
5+ Year Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
4,269
Reaction score
9,945

ASTRO Releases New Radiation Oncology Payment Reform Legislative Proposal


By Geraldine Jacobson, MD, MBA, MPH, FASTRO, ASTRO Chair; Connie Mantz, MD, FASTRO, Health Policy Council Chair; and Catheryn Yashar, MD, FASTRO, Health Policy Council Vice-chair
On June 23, ASTROā€™s Board of Directors approved pursuing legislation to create a new Radiation Oncology Case Rate (ROCR) payment program under traditional Medicare, which would:
  • Change radiation oncology payment from per fraction to per patient.
  • Reverse decade-long declines in Medicare payments.
  • Usher in a new era of stable payments, higher quality care, and reduced disparities.

ROCR represents a bold initiative to reverse disastrous Medicare payment trends. ASTRO believes ROCR is our best chance to secure long-term rate stability and continue to deliver cutting-edge care to patients close to home. ASTRO is seeking feedback on ROCR with the goal of securing broad support from the radiation oncology community before advancing this legislative proposal in Congress.

Background:​

Medicare spends less on all radiation oncology treatments than it spends on just three top cancer drugs; yet radiation oncologists treat more than twice the number of beneficiaries. Despite its high value, radiation oncology has faced more payment cuts than nearly all other specialties through a combination of direct cuts and policy proposals that shift resources from specialty care to primary care. More cuts are likely to come.

The Facts:​

  • Medicare has cut RadOnc payments by more than 20% over the last 10 years.
  • Practice costs are rising, as equipment and staff are getting more expensive.
  • More Medicare beneficiaries are receiving radiation therapy.
  • The current payment system penalizes the use of shorter treatment regimens.
  • The CMS RO Model failed due to excessive payment cuts and administrative burden.

Without stable payments, access to care and quality will suffer and the field will struggle.
U.S. Capitol Building dome with U.S. Flag in background
Radiation therapy is primed to make great gains for cancer patients, but the current Medicare payment system is prohibiting the investments necessary to achieve those goals. ASTRO refuses to let the status quo of cuts and failure of the RO Model stand in the way of radiation oncologists who are committed to providing greater value to their patients. The specialty needs to look forward and act now.
ASTRO has invested significant time and resources in developing this new Medicare payment system for radiation oncology. Developed by ASTROā€™s Health Policy Council physician leaders from various practice settings and with the help of expert consultants, the ASTRO Board approved ROCR as a proposal in June after numerous versions were evaluated and analyzed.
Several practices, including private practices (freestanding and hospital based) and academic centers, modeled ROCR using the tool linked below and determined ROCR was favorable in comparison to expected Medicare fee-for-service payments.

Why ROCR?​

Because it:
  • Addresses the instability of the current payment systems;
  • Aligns financial incentives with clinical guidelines;
  • Ensures use of quality assurance and improvement standards;
  • Reduces disparities by helping underserved patients initiate, access and complete treatments;
  • Uses a more simplified approach than the CMS RO Model;
  • Unifies payment that levels the playing field across care delivery settings;
  • Updates payments annually based on medical inflation trends.

ROCR has precedent in past payment reforms for capital intensive health care services, such as End Stage Renal Disease, which is paid on a prospective basis.

ROCR Ins and Outs​

Included:
  • All radiation oncology practices participating in Medicare.
  • Professional and technical services paid under Medicare physician fee schedule and hospital outpatient prospective payment system for 15 common cancer types.
  • External beam modalities and associated services.
    • Conventional, IMRT, SRS, SBRT

Excluded:
  • Services delivered in inpatient hospitals, ASCs, PPS-exempt cancer hospitals.
  • Medicare Advantage and commercial insurance payments.
  • New Technology and Services (without Cat 1 CPT codes).
    • i.e., Adaptive RT
  • Services without national Medicare prices.
    • Proton therapy, surface guidance
  • Lower volume services.
    • Protons, brachytherapy, radiopharmaceuticals

Excluded technology and services potentially eligible for inclusion in future years.

How does ROCR work?​

  1. Payment rates and RVUs are derived from ā€œM codeā€ case rates published by Medicare in 2022 for technical and professional payments for 15 cancer types.
    1. ASTROā€™s consultants validated the accuracy of these unified payment rates.
    2. Half of the payment will be paid at the start of the radiation treatment.
    3. Final payment will be made at the end of the course of treatment.
  2. Applies annual inflationary payment updates.
    1. Professional payments updated by the Medicare Economic Index.
    2. Technical payments updated by the Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System market basket update.
  3. Applies a savings adjustment, which is phased in over five years.
    1. Savings adjustment would reduce Medicare radiation oncology spending by slightly more than $200 million over five years, which is about 1% of total Medicare spending on radiation oncology each year or about $17,500 per practice, per year.
    2. Savings are needed for Congress to even consider ROCR.
    3. Savings are primarily derived from technical payments.
      1. ASTRO estimates ROCRā€™s level of savings to be less than what is likely to happen if current payment and hypofractionation trends continue.
  4. Provides a Health Equity Achievement in Radiation Therapy (HEART) payment of $500 per patient to technical payments to cover transportation services for underserved patients.
    1. Triggered by using a standardized screening question and billing code.
  5. Provides a technical payment incentive to earn/maintain practice accreditation, which is well accepted by radiation oncology clinics for assessing and improving quality of care.
    1. First three years, accredited practices receive a .5% positive payment adjustment.
    2. After three years, practices would receive a -1.0% adjustment for lack of accreditation.
  6. Applies geographic adjustments and the federally mandated cut of 2%, per current law.

Whatā€™s next?​

Practices are encouraged to use the modeling tool to compare payments under ROCR to trended fee-for-service payments. Tell us how your practice would perform under ROCR.
  • Keep in mind that the tool does not account for additional expected Medicare payment cuts under the fee schedule and the continued impact of increasing hypofractionation on technical revenues.

Review the full ROCR report, technical analysis and modeling tool. We want to hear from you ā€” please send us your feedback via email to Health Policy.
Read the draft letter to Congress and if you agree with ROCR, indicate your practice or organizational support by filling out this form.

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Amazing. They basically authored this in secret. I mean I'm sure the "inner circle" folks knew about it...but I imagine there are about 5,000 Radiation Oncologists hearing about this today.

ASTRO, seriously guys. Are you actively trying to have zero people apply to Radiation Oncology? It feels that way. Authoring secret policy documents is not how you get people excited about the field.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
Members don't see this ad :)
So some committee got really sad that all of the work they put in to RO-APM was going to be for naught, and decided to resurrect it? Some people need better hobbies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I'm saving full judgement until I can read it all and see some numbers breakdown, but you'll know they're serious when they exempt protons or adaptive for common cancers like breast, prostate, and lung ONLY on prospective trials and not registry trials.

Until then you probably don't have to guess at any ulterior motives or know who the winners or losers may be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Are protons really ā€œlow volumeā€? I keep hearing that ā€œtopā€ programs with protons, building expansions, will offer treatment at off hours and sometimes even at night, running the gantry over working hours. Is this really ā€œlow volumeā€? Whachu think folks
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I can't tell from the wording - are they suggesting both hospitals and freestanding facilities get paid the same rate for services?
 
Are protons really ā€œlow volumeā€? I keep hearing that ā€œtopā€ programs with protons, building expansions, will offer treatment at off hours and sometimes even at night, running the gantry over working hours. Is this really ā€œlow volumeā€? Whachu think folks
The ones I'm familiar with are very busy and run late hours. In spite of this, bond payments are killing them. But if they can restructure debt the volume is there.

MDA is expanding their proton program. More are popping up but the velocity has slowed.

Keep in mind their throughput is slower than a linac though. So hours can get looongg.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Canā€™t like this enoughā€¦.

 
  • Like
  • Love
  • Haha
Reactions: 9 users
Why is saving CMS $ a main priority? Is that a priority of ASCO/med onc?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
$200-500 million is a penny to the government. Like, a Mexican penny. So dumb to be wringing our hands over this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Members don't see this ad :)
After draconian cuts why is our specialty society advocating forā€¦ more cuts? Man I wish I was as smart as these guys. No matter how it is structured, we are paid less now than in 2010 Medicare dollars after adjusting for inflation. Published.





The fact that we are advocating cutting ourselves more is just insane. We need increases to bring better technology to aging centers, not cuts. Who possibly thought our bargaining power increases by making a play like this?

ASTRO should make a proposal to let everything other than the 11 exempt centers go belly up and those young enough to retrain switch to another field. Would serve their steering committee well.

Congrats again to all programs matching. I mean what is this??
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
After draconian cuts why is our specialty society advocating forā€¦ more cuts? Man I wish I was as smart as these guys.
Well, cuts for us. Not cuts for them. They are FFS-exempt and treat with protons which are exempt.
 
  • Like
  • Angry
Reactions: 7 users
Provides a technical payment incentive to earn/maintain practice accreditation, which is well accepted by radiation oncology clinics for assessing and improving quality of care.
  1. First three years, accredited practices receive a .5% positive payment adjustment.
  2. After three years, practices would receive a -1.0% adjustment for lack of accreditation.
Since ASTRO provides practice accreditation services isn't that a conflict of interest?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Since ASTRO provides practice accreditation services isn't that a conflict of interest?
ASTRO surveys the financial information of almost 100 of the biggest departments in the country, developing detailed salary and production data in the process.

Then creates an extensive report.

But only sells it to chairs of departments.

Which is the most blatant violation of antitrust you could imagine.

ASTRO is conflict of interest incarnate.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 11 users
Well, cuts for us. Not cuts for them. They are FFS-exempt and treat with protons which are exempt.
So right. By doing this the winners are..

PPS exempt centers - no foul
protons - the biggest players
Chairs - no impact on them

Only way it make sense for ASTRO to say, ā€œ oh you want to cut us more deeply than you have for a decade - well let us counter and we will cut ourselves! Thatā€™ll show youā€


They should propose a model where an extensive transit network is developed to shuttle patients to PPS exempt and proton centers and close everyone else. Think of the savings!! No more sh*tty community doctors treating patients, only the finest radiation plans at the biggest centers. Can keep a few strategic vaults open staffed by SCAROP members to keep them happy.


I was incredulous over literally every program matching through the SOAP. But Astro advocating their own proposal of more cuts, thatā€™s even better. It would really suck for patients to advocate for increased payments to allow technology and staffing improvements.

#radoncrocks
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
They should propose a model where an extensive transit network is developed to shuttle patients to PPS exempt and proton centers and close everyone else. Think of the savings!! No more sh*tty community doctors treating patients, only the finest radiation plans at the biggest centers. Can keep a few strategic vaults open staffed by SCAROP members to keep them happy.

#radoncrocks
Canā€™t argue against it b/c itā€™s done under the name of equity:

ā€œProvides a Health Equity Achievement in Radiation Therapy (HEART) payment of $500 per patient to technical payments to cover transportation services for underserved patients.
  1. Triggered by using a standardized screening question and billing code.ā€
 
Dumb question: do we KNOW that it is a bad plan?ā€¦ or just assuming a high pre-test probability
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Honest question, what do you think the chances are that Ben Smith has spent all kinds of hours putting this thing together? Luckily, I think Astro has near zero clout in Congress, especially after openly targeting Republicans. I think a response/rebuttal needs to drawn up regarding this so that independent MDs can at least forward it to their representatives so they are aware of what/who astro represents.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 7 users
Iā€™m still trying to figure out the rebus in the thread title. Pistol foot? Squirt sole? My pokĆ©mon alter ego thinks it might be a coded reference to our good friend squirtle, but canā€™t figure out what that has to do with APMs? ?!?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
Honest question, what do you think the chances are that Ben Smith has spent all kinds of hours putting this thing together? Luckily, I think Astro has near zero clout in Congress, especially after openly targeting Republicans. I think a response/rebuttal needs to drawn up regarding this so that independent MDs can at least forward it to their representatives so they are aware of what/who astro represents.
Not sure they targeted Republicans anymore than any other group that spoke out against 1/6
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Dumb question: do we KNOW that it is a bad plan?ā€¦ or just assuming a high pre-test probability
It's similar to APM. Reimbursement based on disease type, technology agnostic.

Except...it exempts protons, surface, PPS-exempt centers, and adaptive.

It expressly aims to "save" $200 million over 5 years.

They calculate out $17,500 less per clinic per year to accomplish this.

Could it be worse? Yeah sure, I guess.

But they themselves argue there have been massive cuts to reimbursement over the last decade, and we're insanely "cost effective", with all of RadOnc costing the government less than JUST the top 3 Oncology drugs.

If you open your plan with "we've experienced tremendous cuts, and our entire field cures many cancers for pennies"...

...your solution SHOULD NOT be "and here's how WE CAN GET PAID EVEN LESS FOR DOING EVEM MORE".

The only plan ASTRO should propose:

1) Stop any additional cuts to RadOnc
2) Always, at minimum, adjust for inflation

That's it.

If we imagine Radiation Oncology is an inbound trauma patient, large bleeding leg wound - most of us would say "hey, we should stop the bleeding, maybe even transfuse".

ASTRO? ASTRO has looked at the wound and said "the body is super good at making clots, and if we create 100 additional small wounds, there's less blood available to squirt out the leg!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10 users
What the hell is wrong with these people

Leave the rest of us (most of us) alone and let us do our jobs - screw off you've done enough damage
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 users
Dumb question: do we KNOW that it is a bad plan?ā€¦ or just assuming a high pre-test probability

Itā€™s bad to have your specialty advocacy group come up with a plan that decreases reimbursement / payments for said specialty, especially after all the cuts we have taken.

Thatā€™s the governments job to cut us, and boy have they.

Our ā€œownā€ group advocating for anything other than an increase in payments isnā€™t just bad, itā€™s insane.

Except as GFunk correctly pointed out, it could help close centers and help the giant players and has carve outs to that effect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Itā€™s bad to have your specialty advocacy group come up with a plan that decreases reimbursement / payments for said specialty, especially after all the cuts we have taken.

Thatā€™s the governments job to cut us, and boy have they.

Our ā€œownā€ group advocating for anything other than an increase in payments isnā€™t just bad, itā€™s insane.

Except as GFunk correctly pointed out, it could help close centers and help the giant players and has carve outs to that effect.

The key is that none of these cuts affects the authors of the proposal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Itā€™s bad to have your specialty advocacy group come up with a plan that decreases reimbursement / payments for said specialty, especially after all the cuts we have taken.

Thatā€™s the governments job to cut us, and boy have they.

Our ā€œownā€ group advocating for anything other than an increase in payments isnā€™t just bad, itā€™s insane.

Except as GFunk correctly pointed out, it could help close centers and help the giant players and has carve outs to that effect.
My naive interpretation of thisā€¦ ASTROā€™s attempt at a plea deal. Thereā€™s very clearly some folks in CMS who have it out for usā€¦ you know, those disagreeable bureaucrats who think we should make no more than PCPs. I am sure ASTRO would argue that giving up a pinkie is better than letting the butcher have his choice of cutā€¦ but then again, it isnā€™t really ASTROā€™s pinkie on the chopping block.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: 2 users
My naive interpretation of thisā€¦ ASTROā€™s attempt at a plea deal. Thereā€™s very clearly some folks in CMS who have it out for usā€¦ you know, those disagreeable bureaucrats who think we should make no more than PCPs. I am sure ASTRO would argue that giving up a pinkie is better than letting the butcher have his choice of cutā€¦ but then again, it isnā€™t really ASTROā€™s pinkie on the chopping block.
Well...normally in a negotiation, you should start by asking to buy or sell something at a much higher price than what you actually want, assuming the other side also wants the same.

Sure, CMS wants to cut us - they want cuts for literally everyone (except maybe PCPs).

Normally, we would negotiate proposed cuts by fighting them/asking for more.

This...this would be like the FBI showing up to a hostage situation and going "Ok look, you go ahead and kill...one? One hostage? Just give us the other one alive?"
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users
My naive interpretation of thisā€¦ ASTROā€™s attempt at a plea deal. Thereā€™s very clearly some folks in CMS who have it out for usā€¦ you know, those disagreeable bureaucrats who think we should make no more than PCPs. I am sure ASTRO would argue that giving up a pinkie is better than letting the butcher have his choice of cutā€¦ but then again, it isnā€™t really ASTROā€™s pinkie on the chopping block.
Ralph W thinks we should take a paycut for peds
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
My naive interpretation of thisā€¦ ASTROā€™s attempt at a plea deal. Thereā€™s very clearly some folks in CMS who have it out for usā€¦ you know, those disagreeable bureaucrats who think we should make no more than PCPs. I am sure ASTRO would argue that giving up a pinkie is better than letting the butcher have his choice of cutā€¦ but then again, it isnā€™t really ASTROā€™s pinkie on the chopping block.

I strongly suspect this is correct based on my experience volunteering for ASTRO and talking with policy staffers. At one point, it was suggested to me that after the death of the RO-APM, the concern was being lumped in with an Oncology Care Model. So not only cuts, but also loss of autonomy over the role of radiotherapy in the treatment of patients within cancer centers.

I tweeted a lot about this today and it bothers me that people seem to act like any critique means the whole model is bad or that we don't want or need any model.

My biggest problem with the model by far is the way it was created and presented. This is not a draft document with an official comment period, which ASTRO does for other less impactful projects. The idea that a society should create and release a proposed model to the world that (now) impacts the vast majority of radiation oncologists without giving them a preview is shocking. I am no longer a member, so maybe I am missing something? There was a lot of literature released today and the only option I saw to comment was after release, privately through email to a staffer. We don't know if these comments will be read or made available to members or non-member radiation oncologists. This is unusual.

But wait, there's more. ASTRO has shared that 2 board members, 2 staffers, and a consulting firm worked on this model proposal. As an aside, it is worth noting how ASTRO often writes about receiving results from consultants then editing the output for final release. They did this in the workforce study too.

Anyways, the ROCR Report has no author line. As has been discussed, there are some concerns about small details of the model that reek of COI. The proton and PPS-exemptions are extensively discussed. But what about ASTRO requiring participation in AN accreditation and incident learning program, but somehow only mentioning the ASTRO programs by name? You have to wonder if the volunteers of the quality committee, who shapes APEx and RO-ILS, knew about this requirement or had a chance to look at the documentation. Based on my experience there, my guess is most members did not.

We can infer this was approved by the board, but did anyone else see it or comment? If you know some ASTRO "insiders", board members or committee chairs, old presidents, whatever... ask them if they knew about this model proposal before today. You might be surprised by your poll. Good luck for rank and file members or non-member radiation oncologists. I think we would all agree they are stakeholders.

Dumb question: do we KNOW that it is a bad plan?ā€¦ or just assuming a high pre-test probability

No. I haven't looked at the modeling tool yet to decide if I trust it, and if so, Ill have to evaluate.

My bigger question, though, is what DON'T we know about this plan? It's been a long time since RO-APM died so I am sure there have been many discussions. I worry about what concessions might have been discussed but ultimately left out of the model. I don't know who worked on it, so I can't understand what their motivations might have been in the discussions.

I promise I haven't put on my tinfoil hat, these are reasonable concerns. Consider how ASTRO released the updated proton model payment policy not even 2 months ago. From the ASTROgram:

1688010228133.png


Then a Twitter correction:

1688010263704.png


When this was posted, I re-tweeted it with an emoji of a clown. I deleted the tweet, thinking it was childish, but later in the day I got a call from an ASTRO staffer. This person and I had worked previously on several projects. This person was angry about the clown. A junior staffer made a mistake, was very beat up about it, and my tweet was hurtful. I asked them who worked on the model policy and they said legal restricted them from telling me. I explained my experience in other organizations and said I do not think any laws apply here, people can put their names on proposals and you released two of them by "accident"! I asked if the MPC worked on it and explained that the NAPT is a straight lobby group, did they work on it? Did they involve PT-COG? Proton scientists and physicians? I reminded him I used to sit on the PT-COG board so I know a bit about this world. This policy reflects a shocking amount of power by the "proton lobby", which is openly lead by the NAPT.

Their answer was "everyone has lobby groups". Whoever was lobbying for judicious use of the sometimes-beneficial therapy and patients in that policy had a very weak voice I guess. Importantly, this person would not even explain their cited "mischaracterization" or tell me privately on the phone who worked on the policy. I said Id be happy to sign an NDA. No dice.

I am sure excellent physicians volunteered and contributed to both documents, simply knowing who they are and who pays them does not diminish their value. It would also be nice to thank the volunteers, but ASTRO never seemed big on publicly thanking volunteers for their service. By the way, whoever you are... CHEDI members maybe?... thank you for creatively including transportation support in the policy. I like that part a lot. Happy to discuss/debate that further.

This is the ASTRO I came to know well after 3 years of volunteering. I dropped all committees then my membership, and I will never volunteer for an organization that acts this way again. We can't complain about the exploitation of physicians and their drive to help patients then let a small number of potentially conflicted ASTRO leaders take our money and use it to secretly shape vital policies.

I know there are dedicated and influential radiation oncologists/ASTRO volunteers that read this forum. We all know it doesn't have to be this way. Maybe some day it will change.
 
  • Like
  • Love
  • Wow
Reactions: 18 users
I'm saving full judgement until I can read it all and see some numbers breakdown, but you'll know they're serious when they exempt protons or adaptive for common cancers like breast, prostate, and lung ONLY on prospective trials and not registry trials.

Until then you probably don't have to guess at any ulterior motives or know who the winners or losers may be.

I wanted to bring definitions up separately. What is low volume? Protons are but radiotherapy for anal and pancreatic cancer arenā€™t?

What is adaptive RT? This has many definitions and it gets very confusing when you look at billing.

The word adaptive is not defined or even mentioned in either technical document.

Thought experiment: the promising low volume service of dose escalated 25 fraction SIB IMRT for pancreatic cancer is included and the promising low volume service of 5 fraction on table adaptive is excluded.

If I adapt my 25 fraction plan once, is it now excluded?

Well thought out policies do not use sloppy language or do things like exclude vague categories of treatment like ā€œadaptive RTā€.

Itā€™s almost like someone wants to exclude adaptive for personal interests rather than thoughtfully and altruistically support a promising developing and poorly defined paradigm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Tin foil hat musing which makes me chuckle: what are the chances B. Smith, E. Chen and other brocade crew sat in a smoked filled room with NAPT to draft all this stuff? They certainly did it with APM. Questions must be asked!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
wouldnā€™t there be more than 200M saved over 5 years if we advocated for there NOT to have a PPS and proton exemption? would ACRO or ARS lobby for this?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I strongly suspect this is correct based on my experience volunteering for ASTRO and talking with policy staffers. At one point, it was suggested to me that after the death of the RO-APM, the concern was being lumped in with an Oncology Care Model. So not only cuts, but also loss of autonomy over the role of radiotherapy in the treatment of patients within cancer centers.

I tweeted a lot about this today and it bothers me that people seem to act like any critique means the whole model is bad or that we don't want or need any model.

My biggest problem with the model by far is the way it was created and presented. This is not a draft document with an official comment period, which ASTRO does for other less impactful projects. The idea that a society should create and release a proposed model to the world that (now) impacts the vast majority of radiation oncologists without giving them a preview is shocking. I am no longer a member, so maybe I am missing something? There was a lot of literature released today and the only option I saw to comment was after release, privately through email to a staffer. We don't know if these comments will be read or made available to members or non-member radiation oncologists. This is unusual.

But wait, there's more. ASTRO has shared that 2 board members, 2 staffers, and a consulting firm worked on this model proposal. As an aside, it is worth noting how ASTRO often writes about receiving results from consultants then editing the output for final release. They did this in the workforce study too.

Anyways, the ROCR Report has no author line. As has been discussed, there are some concerns about small details of the model that reek of COI. The proton and PPS-exemptions are extensively discussed. But what about ASTRO requiring participation in AN accreditation and incident learning program, but somehow only mentioning the ASTRO programs by name? You have to wonder if the volunteers of the quality committee, who shapes APEx and RO-ILS, knew about this requirement or had a chance to look at the documentation. Based on my experience there, my guess is most members did not.

We can infer this was approved by the board, but did anyone else see it or comment? If you know some ASTRO "insiders", board members or committee chairs, old presidents, whatever... ask them if they knew about this model proposal before today. You might be surprised by your poll. Good luck for rank and file members or non-member radiation oncologists. I think we would all agree they are stakeholders.



No. I haven't looked at the modeling tool yet to decide if I trust it, and if so, Ill have to evaluate.

My bigger question, though, is what DON'T we know about this plan? It's been a long time since RO-APM died so I am sure there have been many discussions. I worry about what concessions might have been discussed but ultimately left out of the model. I don't know who worked on it, so I can't understand what their motivations might have been in the discussions.

I promise I haven't put on my tinfoil hat, these are reasonable concerns. Consider how ASTRO released the updated proton model payment policy not even 2 months ago. From the ASTROgram:

View attachment 373613

Then a Twitter correction:

View attachment 373614

When this was posted, I re-tweeted it with an emoji of a clown. I deleted the tweet, thinking it was childish, but later in the day I got a call from an ASTRO staffer. This person and I had worked previously on several projects. This person was angry about the clown. A junior staffer made a mistake, was very beat up about it, and my tweet was hurtful. I asked them who worked on the model policy and they said legal restricted them from telling me. I explained my experience in other organizations and said I do not think any laws apply here, people can put their names on proposals and you released two of them by "accident"! I asked if the MPC worked on it and explained that the NAPT is a straight lobby group, did they work on it? Did they involve PT-COG? Proton scientists and physicians? I reminded him I used to sit on the PT-COG board so I know a bit about this world. This policy reflects a shocking amount of power by the "proton lobby", which is openly lead by the NAPT.

Their answer was "everyone has lobby groups". Whoever was lobbying for judicious use of the sometimes-beneficial therapy and patients in that policy had a very weak voice I guess. Importantly, this person would not even explain their cited "mischaracterization" or tell me privately on the phone who worked on the policy. I said Id be happy to sign an NDA. No dice.

I am sure excellent physicians volunteered and contributed to both documents, simply knowing who they are and who pays them does not diminish their value. It would also be nice to thank the volunteers, but ASTRO never seemed big on publicly thanking volunteers for their service. By the way, whoever you are... CHEDI members maybe?... thank you for creatively including transportation support in the policy. I like that part a lot. Happy to discuss/debate that further.

This is the ASTRO I came to know well after 3 years of volunteering. I dropped all committees then my membership, and I will never volunteer for an organization that acts this way again. We can't complain about the exploitation of physicians and their drive to help patients then let a small number of potentially conflicted ASTRO leaders take our money and use it to secretly shape vital policies.

I know there are dedicated and influential radiation oncologists/ASTRO volunteers that read this forum. We all know it doesn't have to be this way. Maybe some day it will change.
Thank goodness you're not the real Matt Spraker, as your username clearly states.

Because if the real Matt Spraker told this story, given where he's worked, who he's worked with, and what he's worked on...I would somehow be more disappointed in ASTRO than I currently am, which I didn't think was possible.

But I don't have to worry about that. Because you're clearly not him.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 10 users
When this was posted, I re-tweeted it with an emoji of a clown. I deleted the tweet, thinking it was childish, but later in the day I got a call from an ASTRO staffer. This person and I had worked previously on several projects. This person was angry about the clown. A junior staffer made a mistake, was very beat up about it, and my tweet was hurtful. I asked them who worked on the model policy and they said legal restricted them from telling me.


Must be the same lawyers that told Zeitman/ASTRO there were "legal concerns" when it came to considering restricting residency expansion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Honest question, what do you think the chances are that Ben Smith has spent all kinds of hours putting this thing together? Luckily, I think Astro has near zero clout in Congress, especially after openly targeting Republicans. I think a response/rebuttal needs to drawn up regarding this so that independent MDs can at least forward it to their representatives so they are aware of what/who astro represents.
Ben smith wants to sell you his software for complying with the program? Going to break your window and then you can pay him to fix it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
There is just no incentive for leadership to promote or preserve community radiation oncology.

Thought experiment time.

Imagine a future where there are only large radiation oncology centers or those associated with large academic centers (or similar as in INOVA or such) that excessively utilize low efficiency, low value care (protons, adaptive). The type of care that takes longer on a machine and takes markedly more physics, physician and RTT resources per patient.

This care may have a marginal value to the patient, but this value will be (and has proven to be) difficult to establish. It will be impossible to establish a survival benefit to such care. There may be small toxicity benefits in some populations. (Remember, 3D standard fractionation prostate is reasonable).

This care is well paid for by the gvt (due to exceptions) and, given the large size of the remaining providers, is exceptionally well paid for by private payors.

Cost per patient goes up. Wait time per patient goes up. Travel time per patient goes up. Patient engagement (percentage wise) with RT as a treatment modality goes down due to availability barriers. Physician salary (at the entry or early career level) goes down precipitously. Physics resources are consolidated, and any investigator initiated trials at the institutional level are more likely to accrue.

It's basically the socialized medicine with private option model, but with U.S. perversion. Instead of the government making hard, value based decisions (like no protons at all or 4 centers nationally for rare pediatric cases), lobbying by prestige institutions leads the government to make an exceptionally low value decision.

This is regulatory capture by the elites. It is the goal.

Getting rid of the ridiculous exceptions will drive the field to better places (a clinical oncology model). Pursuing them only promotes our already pathologic way of doing things.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 16 users
The COI with this is off the charts, which is why they're are no names attached to this (I guess that is a work around?).

Also on the Twitter many are saying how good this beast is. Going to a per patient payment model from a per fraction model will save us from further cuts. Not sure why that is. If this model is adopted why couldn't CMS make further cuts on a per patient basis?
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 5 users
Going to a per patient payment model
I'm OK with per patient. I'll practice the way I want. I'll rapid arc long thoracic metastatic disease and spare acute toxicity. I'll spend less time on the phone, hopefully.

Agree with above, we should not be negotiating from a give-away to start.

Again, large centers will only benefit from this proposal. Global XRT cost, insurance premiums long term and national XRT availability may all move in the wrong direction.

While I like the transportation proposal, I am cynical about it. Poor and elderly almost always go to their local place. Take away the local place....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
There is just no incentive for leadership to promote or preserve community radiation oncology.

Thought experiment time.

Imagine a future where there are only large radiation oncology centers or those associated with large academic centers (or similar as in INOVA or such) that excessively utilize low efficiency, low value care (protons, adaptive). The type of care that takes longer on a machine and takes markedly more physics, physician and RTT resources per patient.

This care may have a marginal value to the patient, but this value will be (and has proven to be) difficult to establish. It will be impossible to establish a survival benefit to such care. There may be small toxicity benefits in some populations. (Remember, 3D standard fractionation prostate is reasonable).

This care is well paid for by the gvt (due to exceptions) and, given the large size of the remaining providers, is exceptionally well paid for by private payors.

Cost per patient goes up. Wait time per patient goes up. Travel time per patient goes up. Patient engagement (percentage wise) with RT as a treatment modality goes down due to availability barriers. Physician salary (at the entry or early career level) goes down precipitously. Physics resources are consolidated, and any investigator initiated trials at the institutional level are more likely to accrue.

It's basically the socialized medicine with private option model, but with U.S. perversion. Instead of the government making hard, value based decisions (like no protons at all or 4 centers nationally for rare pediatric cases), lobbying by prestige institutions leads the government to make an exceptionally low value decision.

This is regulatory capture by the elites. It is the goal.

Getting rid of the ridiculous exceptions will drive the field to better places (a clinical oncology model). Pursuing them only promotes our already pathologic way of doing things.
100% this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The COI with this is off the charts, which is why they're are no names attached to this (I guess that is a work around?).

Also on the Twitter many are saying how good this beast is. Going to a per patient payment model from a per fraction model will save us from further cuts. Not sure why that is. If this model is adopted why couldn't CMS make further cuts on a per patient basis?
People are being intentionally, willfully obtuse
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
There is just no incentive for leadership to promote or preserve community radiation oncology.

Thought experiment time.

Imagine a future where there are only large radiation oncology centers or those associated with large academic centers (or similar as in INOVA or such) that excessively utilize low efficiency, low value care (protons, adaptive). The type of care that takes longer on a machine and takes markedly more physics, physician and RTT resources per patient.

This care may have a marginal value to the patient, but this value will be (and has proven to be) difficult to establish. It will be impossible to establish a survival benefit to such care. There may be small toxicity benefits in some populations. (Remember, 3D standard fractionation prostate is reasonable).

This care is well paid for by the gvt (due to exceptions) and, given the large size of the remaining providers, is exceptionally well paid for by private payors.

Cost per patient goes up. Wait time per patient goes up. Travel time per patient goes up. Patient engagement (percentage wise) with RT as a treatment modality goes down due to availability barriers. Physician salary (at the entry or early career level) goes down precipitously. Physics resources are consolidated, and any investigator initiated trials at the institutional level are more likely to accrue.

It's basically the socialized medicine with private option model, but with U.S. perversion. Instead of the government making hard, value based decisions (like no protons at all or 4 centers nationally for rare pediatric cases), lobbying by prestige institutions leads the government to make an exceptionally low value decision.

This is regulatory capture by the elites. It is the goal.

Getting rid of the ridiculous exceptions will drive the field to better places (a clinical oncology model). Pursuing them only promotes our already pathologic way of doing things.

This is so well put.

If large academic networks already have long wait times to start people on treatment and they are given an unfair advantage compared to local competitors, what will happen to the quality of patient's treatments 10 years from now?

The financial consequences of regulatory capture suck, but the future unintended consequences can really harm our patients. See the ongoing chemotherapy shortages.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Even the transportation proposal is dumb. If community centers are being paid properly, you think that they canā€™t cover lodging, shuttles, gas & parking vouchers, etc.? Itā€™s just a virtue signaling phrase to butter up the reader.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Thank goodness you're not the real Matt Spraker, as your username clearly states.

Because if the real Matt Spraker told this story, given where he's worked, who he's worked with, and what he's worked on...I would somehow be more disappointed in ASTRO than I currently am, which I didn't think was possible.

But I don't have to worry about that. Because you're clearly not him.
ASTRO was a cesspool 5-7 years ago. Not even sure how to describe it now
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Top